Samsung Galaxy S III: 4.8", 2GHz quad-core, ceramic back

A couple of days back, we reported that three South African mobile networks had independently confirmed that they would be stocking Samsung’s new Galaxy S III handset, as soon as July this year. Verified information on the device’s design and specs remain a little more elusive, but with new reports emerging frequently, we’re beginning to get a clearer understanding of what the new Android phone will look like.

The latest revelations come courtesy of BGR, whose ‘trusted source’ has revealed that the reverse of the device will be made from ceramic, adding a significant premium feel to the smartphone. The source also stated that it will have a 4.8” display; previous reports on the S III have all pointed towards a large Super AMOLED Plus display (although most sources have previously claimed it would be a 4.65” screen, matching that of the Galaxy Nexus), and mostly likely with 720p resolution.

What other specs should we expect? A quad-core processor is more or less a given; leaks last month suggested that this would be clocked at 2GHz. 2GB of RAM is also expected, along with uprated camera hardware, while Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich is likely to be running the show.

BGR’s source also stated that Samsung is going for a large-scale simultaneous launch of the Galaxy S III, in an effort to avoid the drip-drip rollout of the current Galaxy S II; despite being announced last year, the Galaxy S II is still just arriving on some networks and in some markets. The aim is to launch the S III in over fifty “markets or cities” at the same time; assuming the device arrives in the third quarter as expected, we’ll see concurrent launches of 3G and 4G versions in the US and numerous other markets around the globe.

One other rumour that hasn’t yet been substantiated came from Phandroid last month, which claimed that Samsung will also offer a variant of the Galaxy S III with a 3D display, and integrated functionality with Samsung’s range of 3D TVs. We'll have to see if that materialises, but given Samsung's penchant for flooding the market with its Android devices - in addition to the S III, it looks like there's at least another four on the way - it's not hard to imagine the company selling a Galaxy S III 3D.

For now, so much of this remains hearsay and conjecture – but one thing that all reports and accounts seem to be pointing towards is that the Galaxy S III is shaping up to be a fantastic new device.


Image via BGR

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Weekend Poll: What do you want to see at MWC?

Next Story

Details about HP's Windows 8 tablet hardware leaks

105 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

people buy on first impression. so samsung wants to make sure G3 has the best first impression. whatever comes next matter less. Isn't this true for apple products? what is better on the iphone than competing samsung and htc phones? virtually none. but it catches the eyes on first look. for most commoners without a tech brain, they buy on sugar rush.

2Ghz Quad Core and 2GB RAM, and people believe in those rumors?

Guys, read more on basic hardware.

Oh, i forgot these sort of story are used to generate page-views so they get more advertising income.....

Oh well, just bought an Atrix. I guess I've saved myself about ~£300 from this.

From the looks of that picture though, I would expect a hardware keyboard to pop out with a screen like that.

ok, this is crazy. Like they ever used two cores (except with some games optimized to multiple cores) and now 4. I wonder how long the battery would last.

This mock-up is less than amateur. It's a Samsung-branded twin of the old bezel-free iPhone mock-up, which just tells us that whoever photoshops these things together all share the same lack of creativity.

I call BS for a very simple, yet strangely compelling reason: no room for a centered, bold carrier logo. You show me a way to fit that as well as 'Samsung', on separate lines, on the front face, on that design, and I'll give you two cookies and an internet.

I wonder what the battery life is going to be on that? I think all manufacturers should start working on some battery or power source that can give you at least a days worth of charge even with moderate-heavy use - whoever gets that right while having comparable hardware power will really set itself apart.

Any wagers on how when (not if, when) Apple will slap a lawsuit on this in every major country in the world, aka doing business as usual?

this is nuts. Not sure about the ceramic either, doesn't ceramic crack easily or something? Then again, the iPhone is glass, so what-****ing-ever.

FalseAgent said,
this is nuts. Not sure about the ceramic either, doesn't ceramic crack easily or something? Then again, the iPhone is glass, so what-****ing-ever.

Don't think so. The tiles on the [underside of the] space shuttle were ceramic and top of the line sports cars use ceramic brakes, so it's pretty strong stuff I'd say.

Xerxes said,

Don't think so. The tiles on the [underside of the] space shuttle were ceramic and top of the line sports cars use ceramic brakes, so it's pretty strong stuff I'd say.

Ceramic is very strong, but it is brittle. If you drop it, there is very little chance of it not getting damaged.

Palpatine said,
Its crazy how much power these devices have. My computer has single core AMD Athlon 64 running at 2,2 GHz and has 1GB RAM...

Frequency doesn't compare the same across different arquitectures, not even across the same arquitectures but different design. I guarantee you, your computer can still do a lot more than you think vs that phone.

VERY nice looking phone, i only got my SGS2 last year, maybe 9/10 months ago in the UK, upgraded from SGS1 and it was such a massive improvement on an already awesome phone....I think i will have to treat myself to this though

The Stark said,

LOL, nope.

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Aergan said,
Very nice looking handset / mini-tablet

i don't think it's sgs 3. it's just someone constantly pushing his fantasies over internet. every single device appeared with this design (out of place disproportional display with no side edges and minimum of top/bottom edges) while being in rumors.

Question is will these quad core phones be using up more battery power? Why do we need that kind of processing power when all that's needed is to play 1080p video, and that would run the OS super smooth anyway.

Daniel_Pooh said,
Question is will these quad core phones be using up more battery power? Why do we need that kind of processing power when all that's needed is to play 1080p video, and that would run the OS super smooth anyway.

Quad-core processors are actually easier on battery life than single or dual-core since the chips use a smaller die process. For example with the Tegra 3, the processes are distributed across the multiple cores, and therefore a quad-core phone consumes less power than a dual-core phone. The Tegra 3 chips actually have a fifth 'companion core' that is built using a special lower-power-silicon process. This companion core handles tasks at a lower frequency for active standby mode, music playback, and video playback. Moreover mobile processors operate at different clock frequencies depending on the type of tasks being done thus energy is saved.

Arceles said,
because is the normal advancement of technology, that's why.
Then why WP is still faster where it only supports single core ?

Anthonyd said,
Then why WP is still faster where it only supports single core ?

Because WP is designed to run on a specific type low-end hardware as specified by Microsoft, Android isn't that kind of OS. WP may yield better results in some benchmarks but it totally fails to catch up with iOS or Android in terms of Heavy Gaming. Just see GTA3, it hasn't been ported to WP since according to Rockstar; 'the current WP hardware lacks power'.

Anthonyd said,
Then why WP is still faster where it only supports single core ?

Because WP is designed to allow users to access features faster. The phone itself isnt faster hardware wise. Different OS and shortcuts/features to access apps/tasks faster.

yowanvista said,

Because WP is designed to run on a specific type low-end hardware as specified by Microsoft, Android isn't that kind of OS. WP may yield better results in some benchmarks but it totally fails to catch up with iOS or Android in terms of Heavy Gaming. Just see GTA3, it hasn't been ported to WP since according to Rockstar; 'the current WP hardware lacks power'.

I guess you haven't looked at xbox live games like ilomillo. It's beautiful and it's been made/adapted for phone controls, GTA is barely playable on a phone, it's just a tech. demo.
techbeck said,
Because WP is designed to allow users to access features faster. The phone itself isnt faster hardware wise. Different OS and shortcuts/features to access apps/tasks faster.

Wrong, WP is smoother than Android/iOS, it doesn't lag like a snail when you are using it.

Anthonyd said,

Wrong, WP is smoother than Android/iOS, it doesn't lag like a snail when you are using it.

Look at the Smoked by Windows phone ads. WP is designed to allow to use certain tasks faster. The ads show this.

And not sure what you mean by running like a snail. My 1st Gen Samsung Galaxy lagged every once in a great while and so far, my GNEX is running really smooth as well as my Transformer Tablet. Now, if you are talking about some of the original androids, then yea...those didnt perform very well. And if you are talking about the lower end newer androids, those suit a purpose for a certain group of people who are not looking for a powerful device.

Oh, and GTA III works great both on my phone and my tablet. Not sure what you mean by barely playable.

Anthonyd said,

I guess you haven't looked at xbox live games like ilomillo. It's beautiful and it's been made/adapted for phone controls, GTA is barely playable on a phone, it's just a tech. demo.

Wrong, WP is smoother than Android/iOS, it doesn't lag like a snail when you are using it.

Granted WP is a superior OS, there is no denying that fact. However, stop with the FUD please! Android does not "lag like a snail" when you use it, it's actually quite smooth for the most part but on occasion it will randomly lag up big time and then go smooth again. As for iOS, once again it's actually pretty damn smooth too and has the occasional lag up now and again.

You WP guys really need to get off your high horses, yes you have a very smooth and efficient OS but there is no need to be all high and mighty about it, cause you know people don't like that try to be more humble and maybe you wouldn't get so much hate from people, just saying.

Xerxes said,

Granted WP is a superior OS, there is no denying that fact.

Matter of opinion unless some how you can prove that WP is superior to other platforms.

techbeck said,

Matter of opinion unless some how you can prove that WP is superior to other platforms.

Well that is very true and I explain further on why I wouldn't buy a WP personally. However, there are aspects of the OS that make it better (in my opinion) to what else is out there; it's more efficient for starters, doesn't need a high powered phone to run properly and as demonstrated by the "Smoked by Windows Phone" it's a much easier and faster OS to use in general. Then there is the fact MS stopped OEMs from filling the phones full of unremovable crap and that all phones get updated (Android, you listening?).

I'm no fan of WP either (Android fan actually), I can't stand Metro and that is a big reason why I won't touch a WP device. However, I'm not blinded by my OS of choice that I can't see that MS have done alot of things right with WP and that Android (more then iOS) could learn alot from them. That is my 2 cents.

Anthonyd said,
Then why WP is still faster where it only supports single core ?

Whatever OSes runs faster or not it doesn't matter for technology advance, that's a fact and it should be like that, worse would be that there were no advancement at all.

techbeck said,

Look at the Smoked by Windows phone ads. WP is designed to allow to use certain tasks faster. The ads show this.

Yes , its designed to do certain talks faster... but that still doesn't stop it also being able to be much smoother than Andriod at scrolling, and slightly better than iOS, mostly due to fundamental differences in the underlying platforms as to how they handle user input, hardware acceleration and UI rendering. Windows Phone (and iOS) are simply fundamentally better at this, because they give the UI and touch input priority over everything else to ensure a smoother and more enjoyable end user experience, whereas Android doesn't.

Edited by ~Johnny, Feb 26 2012, 6:29pm :

Xerxes said,
Granted WP is a superior OS, there is no denying that fact. However, stop with the FUD please! Android does not "lag like a snail" when you use it, it's actually quite smooth for the most part but on occasion it will randomly lag up big time and then go smooth again. As for iOS, once again it's actually pretty damn smooth too and has the occasional lag up now and again.

You WP guys really need to get off your high horses, yes you have a very smooth and efficient OS but there is no need to be all high and mighty about it, cause you know people don't like that try to be more humble and maybe you wouldn't get so much hate from people, just saying.


How many ROM do you have to install to make Android "smooth"?
All my friends using Android where impressed about how fluid my WP is, even the one rooting their devices to remove crappy carriers stuff (and it removes spyware like carrier IQ too as a free bonus!).
So based on my experience, I wouldn't call it "FUD" but "fact", sorry bro.

Anthonyd said,
Then why WP is still faster where it only supports single core ?

Just the interface is a bit faster, the phone itself is incapable to run any game more complex for example, unlike the iphone or s2.

AnarKhy said,
Just the interface is a bit faster, the phone itself is incapable to run any game more complex for example, unlike the iphone or s2.
There are ******** of beautiful games running on WP, I gave examples before; hence your argument is invalid.

Anthonyd said,
There are ******** of beautiful games running on WP, I gave examples before; hence your argument is invalid.

There are a few good looking games, but to be completely frank none of them come *anywhere* close to what Infinity Blade 2 manages on the iPhone 4S. It's an entirely different league. I can of course run complex games unlike what the poster you quoted said, they just don't pack the same graphical punch.

~Johnny said,

There are a few good looking games, but to be completely frank none of them come *anywhere* close to what Infinity Blade 2 manages on the iPhone 4S. It's an entirely different league. I can of course run complex games unlike what the poster you quoted said, they just don't pack the same graphical punch.

Right I was mainly talking about android tho.

I know these are just rumors, but for God's sake! Quad-core at 2GHz? How is that practical in such a device?!? I understand putting such a CPU in a tablet, but there's no way you're going to use that much processing power on a phone. Games make an exception, although I think dual-core would still be enough for gaming, plus the GPU should matter more here.
The amount of RAM is also ridiculous. Just... why? Unless you're doing movie editing (which is not something you should use a smartphone for), more than a gig of RAM is useless. My phone has 512MB of ram, and I've never seen it use over 200MB of it.
As for the screen- what is up with this trend of boosting the average screen size each year? That, and what's up with these screen resolutions? Any screen over 4.3" just seems overly large IMO, though that size may be to accommodate the 720p resolution (which I really don't see why you need. On a 4" screen at 480x800, I only see the pixels when the screen is at about 2 inches away from my face.)
Don't get me the wrong way, I'm all for technological advancement, but slow it down a notch! Wait for the software to catch up and for practical uses for those specs to appear. At the moment, I feel like these specs are just for show.

XMac said,
I know these are just rumors, but for God's sake! Quad-core at 2GHz? How is that practical in such a device?!? I understand putting such a CPU in a tablet, but there's no way you're going to use that much processing power on a phone. Games make an exception, although I think dual-core would still be enough for gaming, plus the GPU should matter more here.
The amount of RAM is also ridiculous. Just... why? Unless you're doing movie editing (which is not something you should use a smartphone for), more than a gig of RAM is useless. My phone has 512MB of ram, and I've never seen it use over 200MB of it.
As for the screen- what is up with this trend of boosting the average screen size each year? That, and what's up with these screen resolutions? Any screen over 4.3" just seems overly large IMO, though that size may be to accommodate the 720p resolution (which I really don't see why you need. On a 4" screen at 480x800, I only see the pixels when the screen is at about 2 inches away from my face.)
Don't get me the wrong way, I'm all for technological advancement, but slow it down a notch! Wait for the software to catch up and for practical uses for those specs to appear. At the moment, I feel like these specs are just for show.

Pricing, this gets you to pay more money, and honestly with the way development goes, this quad core probably cost what last years dual core did, and the single core before that.
ARM processors are advancing fast.

XMac said,
I know these are just rumors, but for God's sake! Quad-core at 2GHz? How is that practical in such a device?!? I understand putting such a CPU in a tablet, but there's no way you're going to use that much processing power on a phone. Games make an exception, although I think dual-core would still be enough for gaming, plus the GPU should matter more here.
The amount of RAM is also ridiculous. Just... why? Unless you're doing movie editing (which is not something you should use a smartphone for), more than a gig of RAM is useless. My phone has 512MB of ram, and I've never seen it use over 200MB of it.
As for the screen- what is up with this trend of boosting the average screen size each year? That, and what's up with these screen resolutions? Any screen over 4.3" just seems overly large IMO, though that size may be to accommodate the 720p resolution (which I really don't see why you need. On a 4" screen at 480x800, I only see the pixels when the screen is at about 2 inches away from my face.)
Don't get me the wrong way, I'm all for technological advancement, but slow it down a notch! Wait for the software to catch up and for practical uses for those specs to appear. At the moment, I feel like these specs are just for show.

The phone will last longer in the run. Back in the old days of Single core processors. We relied on Mhz/Ghz speed bumps to get a faster system. But with introduction of Dual-Core, Quad-Core and even Hexa-core based processors we can have a smoother and faster experience while the hardware itself will last longer as more and more applications become multi-threaded aware.

A Q6600 was released in January 2007, that's over 5 years ago but can run games and operating system like everything else. Of course we do have faster processors but the 5 years it's lasted and the amount years its going to last in the future will show that things have changed from Single core days where if you used a processor from 1998 in a system of 2003, you'll definitely feel behind the times.

As for my Q6600 reference, I have one in my server which runs Windows Server 2008 R2, runs 3 Hyper-V VM's, has 8GB memory (which I can boost even more with a DDR3 motherboard) and it runs great. And it only cost me £65 second hand 3 years ago, money worth spent.

XMac said,
I know these are just rumors, but for God's sake! Quad-core at 2GHz? How is that practical in such a device?!? I understand putting such a CPU in a tablet, but there's no way you're going to use that much processing power on a phone. Games make an exception, although I think dual-core would still be enough for gaming, plus the GPU should matter more here.
The amount of RAM is also ridiculous. Just... why? Unless you're doing movie editing (which is not something you should use a smartphone for), more than a gig of RAM is useless. My phone has 512MB of ram, and I've never seen it use over 200MB of it.
As for the screen- what is up with this trend of boosting the average screen size each year? That, and what's up with these screen resolutions? Any screen over 4.3" just seems overly large IMO, though that size may be to accommodate the 720p resolution (which I really don't see why you need. On a 4" screen at 480x800, I only see the pixels when the screen is at about 2 inches away from my face.)
Don't get me the wrong way, I'm all for technological advancement, but slow it down a notch! Wait for the software to catch up and for practical uses for those specs to appear. At the moment, I feel like these specs are just for show.

Android 4.0 takes advantage of 'additional processing' unlike Gingerbread. The SGSIII will be Samsung's flagship device so it's obvious that it'll have such specifications. Android is kinda RAM-Hungry so the more RAM a device has the more apps it can run without having apps being put into 'suspend mode'.
The need to play HD content explains the need to have a larger screen with a higher ppi imo. It maximizes the 'joy of viewing' with a huge screen, combining a tablet's strength of a large display and the convenient portability of smartphones. Why would one restrict oneself to smaller screens?

XMac said,
I know these are just rumors, but for God's sake! Quad-core at 2GHz? How is that practical in such a device?!? I understand putting such a CPU in a tablet, but there's no way you're going to use that much processing power on a phone. Games make an exception, although I think dual-core would still be enough for gaming, plus the GPU should matter more here.
The amount of RAM is also ridiculous. Just... why? Unless you're doing movie editing (which is not something you should use a smartphone for), more than a gig of RAM is useless. My phone has 512MB of ram, and I've never seen it use over 200MB of it.
As for the screen- what is up with this trend of boosting the average screen size each year? That, and what's up with these screen resolutions? Any screen over 4.3" just seems overly large IMO, though that size may be to accommodate the 720p resolution (which I really don't see why you need. On a 4" screen at 480x800, I only see the pixels when the screen is at about 2 inches away from my face.)
Don't get me the wrong way, I'm all for technological advancement, but slow it down a notch! Wait for the software to catch up and for practical uses for those specs to appear. At the moment, I feel like these specs are just for show.

With more cores, and more ram, developers can start to make apps that actually take advantage of it! This is a VERY good thing. Nothing out there utilizes quad core and 2gb of ram because phones don't have it yet. Once phones have it, the apps will follow.

My 2 year HTC Desire contract ends in May 2012 and Im happy to wait. Specs really increased just after my Desire contract and this time Im banking on the Galaxy to not let me down.

Orange Battery said,
My 2 year HTC Desire contract ends in May 2012 and Im happy to wait. Specs really increased just after my Desire contract and this time Im banking on the Galaxy to not let me down.
Same here, my 2 year contract with my HTC Desire ends May '12 too although I can't wait because if I don't renew my contract in May my telco will automatically roll me over to a new contract (of their choosing) and I'll be forced to pay the breaking contract fee (which for a just started contract is well over a grand) to get the S3 in July which sucks I'll probally end up getting the S2 4G or a Galaxy Nexus, unless the S3 can come out in May which is doubtful...

Cool looking phone, if true. I also heard Samsung is designing a bezeless phone and will be called the Samsung B series.

Anyway, Hopefully Samsung will cool it with the phone size. 5in is to big and 4.8 is pushing it. I personally like 4in screens but my GNEX is 4.65 and I have gotten used to it and it sill fits in my pocket.

techbeck said,

Anyway, Hopefully Samsung will cool it with the phone size. 5in is to big and 4.8 is pushing it. I personally like 4in screens but my GNEX is 4.65 and I have gotten used to it and it sill fits in my pocket.

I wish they'd stop with the huge screen sizes.

Forget about fitting the phone into your pocket, how does one operate this with one hand? I can just about use the SGSII @4.3". 4.8"... no way.

IMO 4"-4.2" is the sweet spot for phone screens

BigGiantHead said,

I wish they'd stop with the huge screen sizes.

Forget about fitting the phone into your pocket, how does one operate this with one hand? I can just about use the SGSII @4.3". 4.8"... no way.

IMO 4"-4.2" is the sweet spot for phone screens

4.6 is pushing it and I can use that with my hands and I dont have big hands. I got the GNEX because I wanted a phone with ICS and I switched carriers.

techbeck said,

4.6 is pushing it and I can use that with my hands and I dont have big hands. I got the GNEX because I wanted a phone with ICS and I switched carriers.

Hopefully Samsung will release a variant of the S3 with the same screen size as the SII in certain markets.

I have the Nexus S so ICS wasn't an issue.

Wow, so far I'm pleased with what I'm seeing and hearing about the S III. I just hope US carriers get is sooner than later.

Sweet deal! I'm definitely waiting to get my hands on the S3 although recently I have been put off from the phone because of the integration Apple is bringing to the table with it's version of OSX. I like the idea that all of the information I place in the Calenders app, Reminders, and notifications in general are able to push to all iOS devices. This makes my life a whole lot simpler. At the same time I think this OS integration will give Apple the ability to make an inferior product in relativity to Galaxy S3, still charge users the same price as an S3, and STILL come out the winner in the mobile market. I think even though these specs are amazing, Apple's integration will take over. Sad because I want the S3 so bad, but I know I'd make more use out of an iPhone.

Exchange ActiveSync has been providing that sort of integration for years (literally longer than the iPhone has been available for). That protocol is supported by Android, iOS, Windows Phone, and plenty of other mobile devices. Gmail and Hotmail support this on the server side too, so you don't need a corporate or hosted Exchange account to take advantage. Automatic photo sync is still something of a new feature, but Android -> Picasa, iOS -> iCloud and Windows Phone -> Skydrive each have something to get it done.

xXgreatestever said,
Sweet deal! I'm definitely waiting to get my hands on the S3 although recently I have been put off from the phone because of the integration Apple is bringing to the table with it's version of OSX. I like the idea that all of the information I place in the Calenders app, Reminders, and notifications in general are able to push to all iOS devices. This makes my life a whole lot simpler.
Yes, it is so cool that Apple finally imitates the synchronicity of Android. My Google Calendar, email, music, documents, photos, etc. are automatically synced with my phone and any other computing device with a web browser or apps like Thunderbird running on Windows or Linux or Mac. Sad that Apple is so limited.

fuzi0719 said,
Yes, it is so cool that Apple finally imitates the synchronicity of Android. My Google Calendar, email, music, documents, photos, etc. are automatically synced with my phone and any other computing device with a web browser or apps like Thunderbird running on Windows or Linux or Mac. Sad that Apple is so limited.

Good point, I guess I could say it's much more easier to do all of this on the iPhone. I think it has more or less to do with how each company chooses to market their phone. A lot of times when I personally sit down to surf the web or watch tv, I always find myself at some point staring into an elegant Apple ad defining iOS's features with a crisp clean voice telling me the new features and the simplicity of iOS. Apple really makes it seem they are marketing the new OS features rather than the Phone.

fuzi0719 said,
Yes, it is so cool that Apple finally imitates the synchronicity of Android. My Google Calendar, email, music, documents, photos, etc. are automatically synced with my phone and any other computing device with a web browser or apps like Thunderbird running on Windows or Linux or Mac. Sad that Apple is so limited.

I haven't tried Mail on OS X, but my experience with different mail clients on Windows has led me to settle on using web-based mail for Google. Whereas on my last two phones everything ties in nicely (Android now iOS). I'm guessing if you're willing to use iCloud then the sync with OS X works great, and Google probably better than Windows. Though I expect that if I were to go with Windows + Windows Phone + Windows Live Mail + Live ID then it's every bit as good (and possibly fantastic with Windows 8)

PaCpiS said,
When is the Galaxy S series going to end ? Following Samsung, we can expect Galaxy S X in early 2016

What on earth are you talking about? The Galaxy S2 was released nearly a year ago and the Galaxy S before that.

Tony. said,

What on earth are you talking about? The Galaxy S2 was released nearly a year ago and the Galaxy S before that.


I know dude, was just wondering how long will it continue...

PaCpiS said,

I know dude, was just wondering how long will it continue...

and we have a play station 1 2 and 3 when will that end /whinge

PaCpiS said,

Why ? To start another more interesting serie...

It's a NAME! Who cares what it's called, it's going to be the same phone regardless. Calling it the Galaxy S3 simply lets you know its Samsungs new flagship device.

PaCpiS said,
When is the Galaxy S series going to end ? Following Samsung, we can expect Galaxy S X in early 2016

when is the iPhone going to end? iPhone will reach iPhone X earlier than Galaxy S X. get facts right!

If I need a tablet, I definitely would go for that one. Unfortunately I looking for a phone which fits into my pocket. Why are all the latest higher spec phones bigger than 4 inch?

vacs said,
If I need a tablet, I definitely would go for that one. Unfortunately I looking for a phone which fits into my pocket. Why are all the latest higher spec phones bigger than 4 inch?

You realize the bezels are thin so the size of the phone is equivalent to 4.5'' or smaller
It might not be bigger that what we are expecting

still1 said,

You realize the bezels are thin so the size of the phone is equivalent to 4.5'' or smaller
It might not be bigger that what we are expecting

If the screen is 4.8" then phone isn't going to be 4.5" will it now?

Tony. said,

If the screen is 4.8" then phone isn't going to be 4.5" will it now?


I dont think u got my point... what i meant was the size of this phone(4.8'') will be equivalent to a 4.5'' phone with a thick bezel.

Tony. said,

If the screen is 4.8" then phone isn't going to be 4.5" will it now?

4.5" is still bigger than 4 which is already too much to make it fit comfortable into a pocket.

vacs said,

4.5" is still bigger than 4 which is already too much to make it fit comfortable into a pocket.

I have a SGS2 which is 4.3" and it feels fine in my pocket, you must have small pockets..

Tony. said,

I have a SGS2 which is 4.3" and it feels fine in my pocket, you must have small pockets..

not everyone wears nut hugging hipster pants a size too small, most of us wear pants that fit loosely so slightly larger phone won't be an issue

vacs said,
If I need a tablet, I definitely would go for that one. Unfortunately I looking for a phone which fits into my pocket. Why are all the latest higher spec phones bigger than 4 inch?

Probably because they are packing in LTE and the battery to power it while trying to compete on thinness. If you're adding more stuff without adding thickness you have to go wider and taller.

z0phi3l said,

not everyone wears nut hugging hipster pants a size too small, most of us wear pants that fit loosely so slightly larger phone won't be an issue

Haha too true!

If this is real, it looks absolutely amazing. Love the very little bezel. Also, if it was a slightly smaller screen like 4.3", that would be perfect - better battery life, and higher PPI density! One day...

tsupersonic said,
If this is real, it looks absolutely amazing. Love the very little bezel. Also, if it was a slightly smaller screen like 4.3", that would be perfect - better battery life, and higher PPI density! One day...
Believe me, the thin bezel will be a disaster.
Edit: Oh and that's obviously not the real phone, just a concept of what it's supposed to look like from the specs confirmed so far. I guess the article should mention it clearly.

Edited by AsherGZ, Feb 25 2012, 8:08pm :

techbeck said,

why?

Hands will easily cover the edges of the screen when holding it. More prone to screen damage when dropped.

jordan. said,

Hands will easily cover the edges of the screen when holding it. More prone to screen damage when dropped.

I have a GNEX and I never touch the screen when I am holding it in my hand. No need to. Now, no bezel on tablets is different since they are bigger and you need a better hold/grip on a tablet to hold it in one hand.

gzAsher said,
Believe me, the thin bezel will be a disaster.

trust me it wont be a disaster...I am assuming u r saying it will be a disaster because it will be difficult to use it....Try holding your smart phone, The fingers wont touch the screen unless u r holding the phone... Thats how normally people use it... so i think it wont bother anyone. if u dont believe me search the countless reviews people give on youtube about smartphones..... no one hold it that way
here is one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...MzVn1sg&feature=related

jordan. said,

Hands will easily cover the edges of the screen when holding it. More prone to screen damage when dropped.

For a phone? Surely the phone can just rest in the palm of one of your hands or you can hold it by the sides with one hand while using the other to perform gestures. Unless you have really tiny hands, I don't see this being much of a problem with people. The iPhone has a really small bezel especially on the sides (not this small, but small).

Shadrack said,

For a phone? Surely the phone can just rest in the palm of one of your hands or you can hold it by the sides with one hand while using the other to perform gestures. Unless you have really tiny hands, I don't see this being much of a problem with people. The iPhone has a really small bezel especially on the sides (not this small, but small).

if the back is rubberized then it will be fine but if it is a slick plastic that is slippery it could be a disaster just because you would need to hold it in place more.

phones of ~4.7 are not big with thin bezels. have you tried Galaxy Nexus? they are not big. if you talk about Note, that is big. try it before commenting.